On the one hand, constitutions are really necessary in the democratic states where although not perfectly, but to a big extent democratic principles such as equality, liberty, tolerance, the respect of human rights, providing the ability for the citizens to elect the government, etc. are applied. The first reason why having a set of exact rules that are respected by every citizen of the democratic state is that having a constitution maintains order and thus, helps all the citizens to live a peaceful and harmonious life. By maintaining order it is meant that if you as a citizen disobey the rules stated in the constitution, the state has a full right to punish you. For example, if it is stated that the right to live is protected by the law and …show more content…
you decide to kill the person, it clearly shows that the one of the fundamental principles stated in the constitution was disobeyed and the state then has a full right to arrest you. By this principle the order is maintained by the state and the rights of the citizens are protected. To illustrate the case mentioned above, the example of the constitution of the United States of America can be used. By presenting the first ten amendments to the US constitution in the Bill of Rights James Madison emphasized the defence of many individual liberties – freedom of speech, religion, press, etc . Therefore, the emphasis on individual liberties provides a security of human rights: the Amendment VI clearly states that ‘the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated’ . If the mentioned rule is not followed, then, it may be assumed, the state has a full right to punish the person or a group of people who do not respect this principle stated in the constitution. According to Noel T. Dowling – the author of “Protection of Human Rights under the United States Constitution” the rule stated in the Bills of Rights that ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law’ becomes ‘the greatest of all instruments in the hands of the courts dues process of law’ because it provides an opportunity to courts to destroy the irrational and corrupt actions performed by the government . It means that both citizens and government are equal against the law and have to respect the rules without an exception. Consequently, if a democratic state has a set of fundamental principles which are respected by all the citizens, the order is ensured because people know what they can and what they cannot. Because of this, obeying the rules stated in the constitution leads to the protection of human rights what results in a peaceful life. Besides, democracies should consider having a constitution as an important and helpful set of laws because it helps to prevent injustice by limiting power of the government.
The main reason why the actions of the politicians are restricted is because their policies among the citizens are limited by the constitution which must be followed by every elected politician. To illustrate this, in the book called “Five Things To know About The Australian Constitution” Helen Irving argues that Australian constitution brought a responsible approach by the government to the Australian citizens because ‘the government can only do what the Constitution permits’ . Due to this, it ‘shapes the way in which policies are put into effect by government’ and ‘determines what sorts of laws can be made’ . Therefore, the outcome of this is the restriction of power by the government what allows citizens to feel safer beyond the …show more content…
constitution. Moreover, ‘in order to prevent oppressive government’ in the current Australian Constitution it is clearly stated that the power is separated between three branches of government – legislature, executive and judiciary . While legislature makes laws and executive passes them, judiciary always checks whether the laws follow all the rules stated in the constitution. W. C. Wentworth, the author of “Responsible Government in Australia: State Constitutions And Federal Power” believes that such a parliamentary system of Australia does not allow individuals to hold much power and make unreasonable decisions what leads to the bigger protection of the rights of Australian people . In addition to this, although the Prime Minister is the head of the government, now there are 30 ministers who can influence his policies. Therefore, the power of Prime minister is limited by ministers who can advise, consult, approve or completely disapprove with the decisions made by the Prime Minister. This again shows how constitution sets a limit on the government. Lastly, because much power is given to Australian people, injustice caused by the politicians may be more easily avoided. In the book “It’s Your Constitution – Governing Australia Today” Cheryl Saunders asserts that people are sovereigns in Australia because of two reasons. Firstly, in 1899, when Australia consisted of six colonies ruled by Great Britain, all Australians were allowed to participate in the referendum and choose whether to accept a constitution or reject it . As a result, the constitution was approved and therefore, it was nothing but ‘the work of Australians’ themselves. Secondly, ‘constitution cannot now be changed without the approval of the people’ what means that the right to alter the constitution is given to the people, not to the politicians. Thus, because of separation of powers, a constitution that clearly states what politicians can do, and the concentration of the power on the people rather than on the politicians end in prevention of injustice and protected human rights in Australia. On the other hand, it constitutions do not always bring benefits to the citizens because constitutions do not necessarily ensure fair actions of the government. In the XXth century, which was one of the bloodiest and most devastating periods in history, there can be found plenty of examples that illustrate how the rulers can take a huge advantage of the constitutions rather than truly care about the rights of the citizens. Joseph Stalin – the supreme leader of the Soviet Union in the years of 1924 – 1953 – is a great example to show how constitutions can be used for personal benefits.
Returning back to the Stalin’s era, it should be remembered that propaganda’s machine was extremely powerful in the Soviet Union. As a result, other countries did not know that SSRS is a democratic country only theoretically. The first argument that illustrates how the first constitution of the Soviet Union did not care about the citizens is that all people who fully agreed to publish the constitution in 1936 were Stalin’s supporters . A ‘Constitutional Comission’ which was responsible for accepting or rejecting a new Stalin’s constitution was formed in 1935 and included ‘thirty one members’ who were fully ‘chaired by Stalin’ . Therefore, because Soviet people were not allowed to vote for their new constitution, it is obvious that Stalin cared not about human rights, but about the expansion of his own
powers. Secondly, the rules stated in the constitution were not followed by the Soviet government at all. In the article called “A Brief Research On 1936 Soviet Constitution under Joseph Stalin” Jingyuan Quian argues that ‘at the first glance, the Soviet Constitution had even more democratic characteristics than its western counterparts’ because the constitution involved things from ‘the right to maintenance in old age and sickness’ to guaranteeing ‘equal rights to women and for all citizens irrespective of nationality or race’ . Looking at such democratic characteristics the Soviet Union could be seen as a real democratic state that applies all the principals of a liberal democracy. However, the reality was absolutely different in spite of all democratic principles provided in the first Soviet constitution because people still suffered from ‘Great Terror’ which included repressions, executions, imprisonment and deportation. To prove this, from approximately 2.2 million Jews in all six Republics of the Soviet Union, only about 95,000 Jews survived the regime . Therefore, Jews were killed massively while in the constitution it was stated that in the USSR people are respected despite their race. Hence, Stalin’s constitution aimed to persuade the world that the USSR is a democratic country and all the policies are followed by the law. However, the reality showed that Stalin did not follow the constitution at all and continued the suppression of people. Finally, despite the democratic principles included in the constitution, involving some particular rules into the constitution allowed Stalin to extend his powers among the citizens. Article 5, for example, states that ‘socialist property in the U.S.S.R exists either in the form of state property or in the form of cooperation and collective-farm property’ . It meant that all property interests were concentrated on the state, not on the individual. As a result, no private ownership was allowed and article 5 provided Soviet government with more power by allowing it to continue the control of the property of every citizen of the USSR. Also, as Jingyuan believes, acknowledging ‘the achievement of the proletarian dictatorship’ in the constitution meant that any attempt to resist against the regime may have ended in the cases of suppression justifiably . In this way Soviet government spread fear among the citizens and ensured its power in the country because people were forced to obey if they wanted to survive. Consequently, by establishing the first Soviet Constitution Stalin expanded his powers what obviously showed that in the country where the supreme leader, not the people, is a sovereign, the rights of the citizens are not protected. In conclusion, the view that ‘every democracy needs a constitution in order to protect the rights of the citizens’ is rather true than false. Even though constitutions are not perfect and have limitations, they are needed in democracies where most of democratic principles are respected. The first reason why democracies need constitutions rather than not is that by having a set of rules order is maintained because both politicians and citizens are obligated to obey the rules. Otherwise, the state has a full right to punish them. Therefore, order leads to a harmonious and peaceful life of the citizens. Moreover, in most cases constitutions set a limit on the governments and thus, provide people with more power. However, it should not be forgotten that sometimes constitutions may become a great means to the politicians to expand their powers among the citizens. Also, not every politician in the world is fair enough to follow all the rules stated in the constitutions. Because of this, democracies should make effort to deal with problems that arise in having constitutions instead of radically rejecting having it. To a big extent, constitutions help democracies to ensure freedom of their citizens by maintaining order and restricting governments and therefore, constitutions are necessary in democratic states.
From five states arose delegates who would soon propose an idea that would impact the United States greatly. The idea was to hold a meeting in Philadelphia called the Constitutional Convention in 1787 meant to discuss the improvements for the Articles of Confederation and would later be called the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution was greatly influenced by Ancient Rome, the Enlightenment, and Colonial Grievances.
A Constitution is a set of rules put in place to govern a country, by which the parliament, executive and judiciary must abide by in law making and administering justice. In many countries, these laws are easily changed, while in Australia, a referendum process must take place to alter the wording of the Constitution (Commonwealth of Australia, date unknown, South Australian Schools Constitutional Convention Committee 2001). Since the introduction of the Australian Constitution in January 1901, there have been sufficient proposals to alter and insert sections within the body to reflect the societal values of the day, ensuring the Constitution remains relevant to the Australian people. Although Constitutional reform can be made on a arrangement of matters, the latest protests on Indigenous recognition and racial references within the body of the Constitution has called into question the validity of racial inclusion, and whether amendments should be made to allow for recognition. This essay will focus on the necessity of these amendments and evaluate the likelihood of change through the process of referenda.
Without the power of the constitution, each state would make their own regulations regarding how laws should be seen and approached. This also mean that each state would have to make their own money, which we all know that money is the cause of all evil. Without a constitution, each state would also have to set up systems for patents, copyrights, piracy, and declaring war on other states. Simply, without the constitution, the United States as we know it to be today would not exist. Our country would become weak and eventually fall short to many bad rules and laws.
In fact the Soviet people never saw any of these rights. Constitutional rights could only be used to support the regime, not to criticize it. In conclusion, many Soviet citizens appear to believe that Stalin’s positive contributions to the U.S.S.R. far outweigh his monstrous acts. These crimes have been downplayed by many of Stalin’s successors as they stress his achievements as collectivizer, industrializer, and war leader. Among those citizens who harbor feelings of nostalgia, Stalin’s strength, authority and achievement contrast sharply with the pain and suffering of post-revolutionary Russia.
Stalin’s hunger for power and paranoia impacted the Soviet society severely, having devastating effects on the Communist Party, leaving it weak and shattering the framework of the party, the people of Russia, by stunting the growth of technology and progress through the purges of many educated civilians, as well as affecting The Red Army, a powerful military depleted of it’s force. The impact of the purges, ‘show trials’ and the Terror on Soviet society were rigorously negative. By purging all his challengers and opponents, Stalin created a blanket of fear over the whole society, and therefore, was able to stay in power, creating an empire that he could find more dependable.
A constitution is the system of fundamental principles according to which a nation is governed. Our founding fathers created the US Constitution to set specific standards for our country. We must ask ourselves why our founding fathers created the Constitution in the first place. America revolted against the British due to their monarchy form of government. After the American Revolution, each of the original 13 colonies operated under its own rules of government. Most states were against any form of centralized rule from the government. They feared that what happened in England would happen again. They decided to write the Articles of Confederation, which was ratified in 1781. It was not effective and it led to many problems. The central government could not regulate commerce between states, deal with foreign governments or settle disputes. The country was falling apart at its seams. The central government could not provide assistance to the state because there wasn’t a central army. When they realized that the Articles of Confederation was not up to par, they held a convention, known as the Constitutional Convention of 1787. As a result of t...
Constitution is a necessary feature as it defines how power is disseminated within the government and establishes the rights of the citizens and the laws and rules for the country. In order to be successful, a country’s should reflect and satisfy every citizen’s needs and interests.
Ozdowski, Sev. 2007. Why We Need an Australian Bill of Rights Now. Pg. 22-25. Swinburne Online Library. Viewed 19th December 2016.
Aboriginals have lived various types of lives and in attempt to improve the lives of Canada’s Aboriginal people formed the Aboriginal self-government. Developing self-government for aboriginal peoples living in urban areas was not easy. The form of self-government varied across the country depending on the factors in each area or region. Some cities had existing aboriginal organizations providing a good basis upon which to build which made the self-government an easier thing to make. Despite the many challenges, self-government for aboriginal peoples living in urban areas is a concept that can be realized and can contribute to meeting the needs and aspirations of Canada’s Aboriginal peoples. Since the formation, the self-government has accomplished
In order to conclude the extent to which the Great Terror strengthened or weakened the USSR, the question is essentially whether totalitarianism strengthened or weakened the Soviet Union? Perhaps under the circumstances of the 1930s in the approach to war a dictatorship may have benefited the country in some way through strong leadership, the unifying effect of reintroducing Russian nationalism and increased party obedience. The effects of the purges on the political structure and community of the USSR can be described (as Peter Kenez asserts) as an overall change from a party led dictatorship to the dictatorship of a single individual; Stalin. Overall power was centred on Stalin, under whom an increasingly bureaucratic hierarchy of party officials worked. During the purges Stalin's personal power can be seen to increase at the cost of the party.
When most people hear the name Joseph Stalin, they usually associate the name with a man who was part of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and was responsible for the deaths of millions of people. He was willingly to do anything to improve the power of the Soviet Union’s economy and military, even if it meant executing tens of millions of innocent people (Frankforter, A. Daniel., and W. M. Spellman 655). In chapter three of Sheila Fitzpatrick’s book, Everyday Stalinism, she argues that since citizens believed the propaganda of “a radiant future” (67), they were able to be manipulated by the Party in the transformation of the Soviet Union. This allowed the Soviet government to expand its power, which ultimately was very disastrous for the people.
While we have a constitution that lays out our clear cut civil liberties and all the rights we possess, other countries chose to restrict those freedoms. Due to the many advantages the Constitution gives each American citizen, the US has been able to keep this document intact as long as they have while other countries have to constantly restructure their government principles. This stability leads to greater efficiency in our legislative process and a strong sense of national pride. For a nation filled with differences and mixed opinions, the Constitution is a perfect fit. It was written as unbiased as possible to ensure that it was not limiting anyone or anything, instead, giving each citizen the ability to keep their government in check and grant freedom to everyone. During the time the document was written was when the Colonist knew exactly what it felt like to live in a world of oppression and unjust government. As a result, Madison and the other leaders at the time made it a goal to put the power in the hands of the people and make freedom an utmost priority. With an Unbiased approach to government that gives no advantage to one group or another, and with amendments that only help citizens take control, the Constitution is what the early colonist left Europe and died
Rule of Lenin vs the Tsar The beginning of the 20th century saw a great change in the political structure of the Russia. A country once led under an autocracy leadership. was suddenly changed into a communist state overnight. Dictatorship and communism are at separate ends of the political spectrum. This study so clearly shows both involve the oppression of society and a strict regime in which people are unable to voice their opinions.
During Stalin’s regime, the individual Russian was the center of his grand plan for better or worse. Stalin wanted all of his people to be treated the same. In the factory the top producer and the worst producer made the same pay. He wanted everyone to be treated as equals. His goal to bring the Soviet Union into the industrial age put tremendous pressure on his people. Through violence and oppression Stalin tried to maintain an absurd vision that he saw for the Soviet Union. Even as individuals were looked at as being equals, they also were viewed as equals in other ways. There was no one who could be exempt when the system wanted someone imprisoned, killed, or vanished. From the poorest of the poor, to the riches of the rich, everyone was at the mercy of the regime. Millions of individuals had fake trumped up charges brought upon them, either by the government or by others who had called them o...
The objective of this essay is to examine if codified constitutions hinder effective decision-making and may undermine democratic processes. Based on analysis regarding the role of codified constitution in a democratic polity, it can be argued that a codified constitution does not hinder effective decision-making but may undermine democratic processes. Before it is possible to work effectively with the given statement it is necessary to isolate and define important terms. Thus, this essay will firstly define what codified constitutions, effective decision-making and democratic processes are. The definition of effective decision-making will have a major impact on the final assessment of the relationship between codified constitutions